To the Editor:
In Laura Herbert’s Jan. 30 column, “Reject McHale Report,” she misses the point on both the value of foreign language requirements and the aim of the McHale report.
First, associating future success with a modest foreign language requirement – at the high school or college levels – is just plain wrong. A high school graduate hoping to become a mechanic, a real estate broker, or a daycare assistant would benefit marginally at best from fulfilling these requirements.
A 14-year old hoping to one day become one of these, among a slew of other professions where foreign language knowledge barely if at all aids in their overall success, would be hard pressed to see the use in taking mandated foreign language classes.
Likewise, in my informal survey of undergrads over the course of the day, I found that most begrudge their foreign language requirement as a financial and intellectual drain, lowering their GPA’s, raising the number of credit-hours they must complete and leaving them with a bare minimum proficiency.
Secondly, the McHale report does not seek to demean foreign language programs at our university, but empower the colleges and the students themselves to define their education. While citing professional and civic development and analytical thinking and grammar skills as benefits of foreign language programs, Herbert fails to recognize the plethora of courses offered that one, already help hone these skill sets and two, more relevantly address these issues with regard to a student’s major program.
To reject the McHale Report on this single point is foolish. The report addresses many of the concerns undergraduates have, foreign language requirements being one of many. I suggest reading the report and making up your own mind before accepting Herbert’s conclusions.
Kyle FoxUSG Policy Director
